Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:11 pm
Hi Charles,
You keep returning to this question as if the museum and management were a private body, rather than as they are, a public, national institution of international importance, recognition and that standard.
So would I. I'd love to hear the Museum's point of view. I've asked them. I've told them I'm a journalist, writing for a (generally respected) aviation magazine. I've told them what I've been made aware of, asked them to respond, comment, anything.
Nothing. Not even the courtesy of a 'no comment'.
Not just me, but I am aware that several other journals and a couple of museums have contacted them. Nothing. Silence. I'm not aware of ANY response by the Museum to anyone. This isn't acceptable for a public institution.
On that basis, they are failing in their duty to inform a) the volunteers b) the public or press of their actions and intent. The statement released clearly show that there currently is no fully worked out plan, that they can't state what they are going to do, and, at the most charitable, don't seem to know that aircraft have been moved into that store and from the site - less charitably, they are bluffing or lying.
They are an internationally accredited museum which mean there are a number of standards that they must adhere to to retain that accreditation in 2007.
In order - No. Personal feelings have no place in the question. International museum organisations, and us through them have the right to request a response from the museum. But they aren't even talking to anyone in Belgium!
The Museum volunteer petition asks only for a statement of intent and disclosing their plan - hardly condemnation, and I cannot see anywhere that's an unreasonable request.
You may feel there's 'no evidence'. I'm satisfied that if we don't do something, on the evidence I've assembled, on the lack of any response to anyone, except one inaccurate and partial PDF, then a valuable collection of historic aircraft are going to be trashed through negligence.
Wally Soplata is a private collector, and not a national or even private museum. The Brussels Air Museum is a national, publicly owned museum.
They certainly have a magnificent collection. By undertaking the bits of the part plan that they have released they will destroy much of that collection. Being spot-lit and asked to explain themselves has already caused the museum's management to realise they can't continue to please themselves (they certainly aren't working to a recognised standard for the class of museum, they clearly aren't talking to the volunteer staff, and the evidence I have both of what I have seen with my own eyes, photos here and the comparisons in Holland and France show they are not achieving even the local standard) and that they are now being held to public accountability.
I'd love to see their 'mission statement' too. Why don't you ask them for it, which would help? Maybe they'll do their job if YOU ask - no-one else seems to have an effect.
If I may rant a moment, as I've carefully stuck to facts and conclusions drawn from what we do know, despite certain Devil's advocacy.
We have people regularly posting here bewailing the losses of yesterday, 'what if we could go back and recover..' We all regret losses and errors in the past. Yet, here is an IMMEDIATE need; it's a straightforward request that'll take a moment of time, or an hour of research, to just ASK the museum's management to state their plan, yet we have people tying themselves in knots to find excuses to sit on their hands, and to say 'that abysmal failure...' (NB, in my professional, informed opinion) '...is OK'.
Feel free to do nothing. What harm can it do to sign the petition? Might you actually help save a museum by taking a moment? Yes. Can anyone be hurt? No. Where's the problem?
Regards,
You keep returning to this question as if the museum and management were a private body, rather than as they are, a public, national institution of international importance, recognition and that standard.
visaliaaviation wrote:Before I will join in a joint call for condemnation, I would like to see the museum's original mission statement.
So would I. I'd love to hear the Museum's point of view. I've asked them. I've told them I'm a journalist, writing for a (generally respected) aviation magazine. I've told them what I've been made aware of, asked them to respond, comment, anything.
Nothing. Not even the courtesy of a 'no comment'.
Not just me, but I am aware that several other journals and a couple of museums have contacted them. Nothing. Silence. I'm not aware of ANY response by the Museum to anyone. This isn't acceptable for a public institution.
On that basis, they are failing in their duty to inform a) the volunteers b) the public or press of their actions and intent. The statement released clearly show that there currently is no fully worked out plan, that they can't state what they are going to do, and, at the most charitable, don't seem to know that aircraft have been moved into that store and from the site - less charitably, they are bluffing or lying.
visaliaaviation wrote:How do we know that they are not living up to the ONLY standard that can be applied??
They are an internationally accredited museum which mean there are a number of standards that they must adhere to to retain that accreditation in 2007.
Face it. Anything else has to be assumption of facts not in evidence, or condemnation of performance standards applied after the fact. Feelings and personal perseptions, in this case, may not even be on the table. As Americans, and other foriegners, we may not even have the right to complain. At best we can only invoke or become part of public outcry. So far, all that's been presented are a few opinions of how bad they are doing. Let's have more facts to back up the accertions. It would be a shame to align ourselves to a misquided but outwardly good intentioned falsehood.
In order - No. Personal feelings have no place in the question. International museum organisations, and us through them have the right to request a response from the museum. But they aren't even talking to anyone in Belgium!
The Museum volunteer petition asks only for a statement of intent and disclosing their plan - hardly condemnation, and I cannot see anywhere that's an unreasonable request.
Nothing is black and white, and I would be the first to complain about perceptions I hold about any nymber of aircraft, owners, institutions and/or whatever. But I also have to recognize my complaint without documented facts in support is only an opinion.
You may feel there's 'no evidence'. I'm satisfied that if we don't do something, on the evidence I've assembled, on the lack of any response to anyone, except one inaccurate and partial PDF, then a valuable collection of historic aircraft are going to be trashed through negligence.
BTW- I guess Wally Suplada (spelling?) should be condemed too, for keeping such a dispicable "bone yard" all those years? Oh wait, he didn't have the where withall to keep his planes under better conditions. But I guess he did the best he could with what he had. Kind of reminds me of certain hamstrung air museums/ collections ALL AROUND the World.
Wally Soplata is a private collector, and not a national or even private museum. The Brussels Air Museum is a national, publicly owned museum.
If we knew what conditions and restrictions applied (we really need to see thier mission statement) to the Brussels museum we could make a better guess at how badly they actually manged to save the aircarft they did!
They certainly have a magnificent collection. By undertaking the bits of the part plan that they have released they will destroy much of that collection. Being spot-lit and asked to explain themselves has already caused the museum's management to realise they can't continue to please themselves (they certainly aren't working to a recognised standard for the class of museum, they clearly aren't talking to the volunteer staff, and the evidence I have both of what I have seen with my own eyes, photos here and the comparisons in Holland and France show they are not achieving even the local standard) and that they are now being held to public accountability.
I'd love to see their 'mission statement' too. Why don't you ask them for it, which would help? Maybe they'll do their job if YOU ask - no-one else seems to have an effect.
If I may rant a moment, as I've carefully stuck to facts and conclusions drawn from what we do know, despite certain Devil's advocacy.
We have people regularly posting here bewailing the losses of yesterday, 'what if we could go back and recover..' We all regret losses and errors in the past. Yet, here is an IMMEDIATE need; it's a straightforward request that'll take a moment of time, or an hour of research, to just ASK the museum's management to state their plan, yet we have people tying themselves in knots to find excuses to sit on their hands, and to say 'that abysmal failure...' (NB, in my professional, informed opinion) '...is OK'.
Feel free to do nothing. What harm can it do to sign the petition? Might you actually help save a museum by taking a moment? Yes. Can anyone be hurt? No. Where's the problem?
Regards,
Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:08 pm
I visited the Brussels Air Museum in April 2007 and was impressed with the amazing collection of aircraft they have on display. The single exhibit hall is large, old and elegant looking. There is no admission charge. Here's a few pictures of some of the WWII gems they have on display so you can see what's at risk if they don't get good short term (during the building restoration) and long term care. I'll sign the petition to hopefully bring about changes in administration to guarantee their future.
Dennis
Spitfire Mk IX
Spitfire Mk XIV
Mosquito
Fairey Battle
Blenheim
A-26 Invader with work taking place on both engines
Yak-11
Dennis
Spitfire Mk IX
Spitfire Mk XIV
Mosquito
Fairey Battle
Blenheim
A-26 Invader with work taking place on both engines
Yak-11
Last edited by Dennis Bergstrom on Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:30 am
Wow! Great collection.
Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:37 pm
Gentlemen,
I am still rather surprised at this 'crusade' against the Brussels Air Museum!
I am wondering what the real reasons are behind this?
Although I believe you genuinely care about this collection, I am very surprised about the fact that this museum is singled out.
We (I assume) live in free countries and are allowed to sign any petition or make any comment we like, but I am not convinced there are enough arguments and/or there is enough evidence.
As several other forum users have pointed out many museums have scrapped aircraft or kept them in poor stores, or continue to display them outside.
Why is the BAM (also the noice you will hear when the roof eventually comes down, if not repaired) singled out?
I have mentioned Duxford before ( I do not want to start my own crusade just use some points for comparison), there are still many aircraft outside rotting away, a high entry fee, the recent development has achieved very little, their way of hanging aircraft has caused lots of damage and I do not believe there are many original unrestored aircraft at Duxford.
On the other hand we have the BAM, many very original aircraft, a fantastic (usefull) building, free entry, and by comparison a much better representation of the nation's aviation achievements as Duxford is for the UK.
Preserving aircraft (and most other things) is about controlling the environment, and preserve them as they are.
This is what BAM is trying to do, improve the environment.
Duxford gets tons of money and goes crazy by building bizarre stuff while still keeping a lot outside.
BAM has a small budget and goes for the obvious thing, improve the building/environment.
In the short term the collection will have to be in less than ideal storage (if that is what will happen) and subsequently it can return to a building with improved environment.
It is not just Duxford (I place I really enjoy BTW), but many other places that I could use for sake of argument. Petitions? NO!
BAM is trying to improve their display environment and are being criticised for it????
I think to offer support/advice rather than condem suggested improvements is the way forward.
Best of luck,
Chris
I am still rather surprised at this 'crusade' against the Brussels Air Museum!
I am wondering what the real reasons are behind this?
Although I believe you genuinely care about this collection, I am very surprised about the fact that this museum is singled out.
We (I assume) live in free countries and are allowed to sign any petition or make any comment we like, but I am not convinced there are enough arguments and/or there is enough evidence.
As several other forum users have pointed out many museums have scrapped aircraft or kept them in poor stores, or continue to display them outside.
Why is the BAM (also the noice you will hear when the roof eventually comes down, if not repaired) singled out?
I have mentioned Duxford before ( I do not want to start my own crusade just use some points for comparison), there are still many aircraft outside rotting away, a high entry fee, the recent development has achieved very little, their way of hanging aircraft has caused lots of damage and I do not believe there are many original unrestored aircraft at Duxford.
On the other hand we have the BAM, many very original aircraft, a fantastic (usefull) building, free entry, and by comparison a much better representation of the nation's aviation achievements as Duxford is for the UK.
Preserving aircraft (and most other things) is about controlling the environment, and preserve them as they are.
This is what BAM is trying to do, improve the environment.
Duxford gets tons of money and goes crazy by building bizarre stuff while still keeping a lot outside.
BAM has a small budget and goes for the obvious thing, improve the building/environment.
In the short term the collection will have to be in less than ideal storage (if that is what will happen) and subsequently it can return to a building with improved environment.
It is not just Duxford (I place I really enjoy BTW), but many other places that I could use for sake of argument. Petitions? NO!
BAM is trying to improve their display environment and are being criticised for it????
I think to offer support/advice rather than condem suggested improvements is the way forward.
Best of luck,
Chris
Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:22 pm
Chris
You don't seem to reading a lot of the posts well enough. I say again, we were ASKED by museum VOLUNTEERS to make the petition known for the reasons I stated in my previous post, are you saying you know more about what is going on than they do?
Dave
You don't seem to reading a lot of the posts well enough. I say again, we were ASKED by museum VOLUNTEERS to make the petition known for the reasons I stated in my previous post, are you saying you know more about what is going on than they do?
Dave
Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:50 pm
visaliaaviation wrote:Well, at least someone is reading what I have to say. Thank you even if we do not agree 100%.
In a perfect world there would be no need for museums, would there?
If every one kept his/her aircraft in perfect storage there would be nothing rare or of note. Rarity in aircraft, like art ,is EXACTLY what makes it deserving of being saved.
Now I'm not advocating that treasure should be preserved in the manner shown in the photos. I'm stating that is the fact of the matter for MANY museums and aircraft around the world.
Should it be different at Brussels YES. but that 's the way we'd like to all museums operate. The big picture is that if you feel a need to rail against the powers that be in Belgium, go for it.
(my emphasis)
Nothing rare or of note?
There's a little building in Washington, D.C., that makes me want to contradict that statement. Here I go: In one room alone, we've got the first non-government ship to go into space, the Spirit of St. Louis, the Bell X-1, and other planes. In another room (was moved last year or two), the Wright 1903 Flyer sits. Now... even if a lot of Wright-built aircraft existed, you'd only have ONE 1903 flyer. Only ONE Flak Bait (most US combat missions during WWII or something like that).
--goingofftopicsorta--
That's one thing that frustrates me about the Smithsonian: ANYONE CAN TOUCH FLAK BAIT (this is on the subject of horrid aircraft display/preservation which is kinda on topic). I was standing there, taking pictures of the Spit, when some woman went "Oh, they made it so you can touch it!"
While I understand her naivete, I was appalled that the National Air & Space Museum, part of the prestigious Smithsonian Institution, deemed it necessary to block off the plexiglass nose and rear section of the cockpit so no one could touch it/get inside, but left the historic, original nose art easily accessible to the viewer.
Yes, it really looks like you're supposed to touch it!
Upon whirling around, I politely pointed out that if the woman would not touch the Mona Lisa, then she certainly should not touch this. I explained the value of this particular aircraft (only 7 existing, basic museum policies on touching artifacts, original, historic nose art). She seemed not to care... at all. Must have thought I was one crazy 17 year old. Now I know why, when I looked at the plane the first time, large portions of the paint had been rubbed off. It sickens me. I registered a complaint, but I doubt they've done anything about it.
--backontopic--
Then there's fires, hurricanes, and other things which tend to destroy museums. The elements are what we would like to see these aircraft preserved from, but the elements are exactly where they are placing these airplanes. See the problem? If the Brussels Museum puts the aircraft where they can be destroyed, they most likely will. The petition (which I signed, I think; it's been a few weeks) is asking the museum NOT to do that.
Me? I'd rather find those aircraft bonyards and if I can, help rebuild the relics into flyers and museum exhibits.
Charlie
Historic Flight Project
Very few boneyards exist out there where you can turn relics into flyers. Most boneyards have multi-engine aircraft that would cost lots of money to rebuild.
Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:54 pm
Some useful points and thoughts here, but I also remain amazed by some comments - I'd hate to have to organise a consensus here.
There is no 'crusade against' there is serious concern about the management of a very important museum I wish to see continue - even go from strength to strength.
I don't know what you can think it might be, Chris - I've laid my motivation, methodology and mandate on the table; you'd have to be real strong on conspiracy theory to find issue with a petition request for more transparency from an organisation.
Who directs your opinion?
Did you read my posts? It's singled out because it is the single national collection in the world that is at risk of almost total destruction by the management. Despite the requests for transparency, and only a request for that, they are still unable and unwilling to explain their plan. Unlike any other equivalent national collection in the first world.
No one has suggested that the building doesn't need refurbishment - that's your view alone. I'm very happy to offer support and help - if I (or anyone else) had got any input from the museum's management, I'd put their case forward. Silence is NOT acceptable. Chris, if you wish to continue the debate, please read the posts, and respond, if you wish, to any points you feel are wrong by all means - but I reiterate:
What harm can it do to sign the petition? Might you actually help save a museum by taking a moment? Yes. Can anyone be hurt? No. Where's the problem?
I've said my piece - I've seen no evidence to alter the view; except denial of existing evidence. I'd be DELIGHTED to hear it's all OK. Until that time advocacy of inertia gets no vote from me.
With respect,
Chris Schaarden wrote:I am still rather surprised at this 'crusade' against the Brussels Air Museum!
There is no 'crusade against' there is serious concern about the management of a very important museum I wish to see continue - even go from strength to strength.
I am wondering what the real reasons are behind this?
I don't know what you can think it might be, Chris - I've laid my motivation, methodology and mandate on the table; you'd have to be real strong on conspiracy theory to find issue with a petition request for more transparency from an organisation.
Who directs your opinion?Although I believe you genuinely care about this collection, I am very surprised about the fact that this museum is singled out.
Did you read my posts? It's singled out because it is the single national collection in the world that is at risk of almost total destruction by the management. Despite the requests for transparency, and only a request for that, they are still unable and unwilling to explain their plan. Unlike any other equivalent national collection in the first world.
I think to offer support/advice rather than condem suggested improvements is the way forward.
No one has suggested that the building doesn't need refurbishment - that's your view alone. I'm very happy to offer support and help - if I (or anyone else) had got any input from the museum's management, I'd put their case forward. Silence is NOT acceptable. Chris, if you wish to continue the debate, please read the posts, and respond, if you wish, to any points you feel are wrong by all means - but I reiterate:
What harm can it do to sign the petition? Might you actually help save a museum by taking a moment? Yes. Can anyone be hurt? No. Where's the problem?
I've said my piece - I've seen no evidence to alter the view; except denial of existing evidence. I'd be DELIGHTED to hear it's all OK. Until that time advocacy of inertia gets no vote from me.
With respect,
Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:21 am
No response on the mission statement of the museeum?
A quick s earch on their site gave the following result:
museum > scientific institution
Scientific institution
By a Royal Decree of 11 June 1976, the Museum became a federal scientific institution with tree departments. The Museum falls within the competence of the Ministry of Defence.
technology
scientific documentation and research
military history
Its general mission is to:
research
obtain
preserve
study
publications or objects concerning military history and place them at the disposal of the public.
In 2003, the Royal Military Museum became, by royal decree, an autonomous State service, similar to the other scientific institutions, which fall within the competence of the Ministry of Scientific Policy. Through this new structure, the institution gained a larger financial and administrative autonomy. A Board of Directors, composed of university representatives, ministry delegates, external specialists and Museum staff, plans long-term policy and controls finances.
This Board of Directors is assisted by a Scientific Commission and a Buyers Commission. The former advises on scientific projects, the latter has to be consulted for purchases over a given amount.
A quick s earch on their site gave the following result:
museum > scientific institution
Scientific institution
By a Royal Decree of 11 June 1976, the Museum became a federal scientific institution with tree departments. The Museum falls within the competence of the Ministry of Defence.
technology
scientific documentation and research
military history
Its general mission is to:
research
obtain
preserve
study
publications or objects concerning military history and place them at the disposal of the public.
In 2003, the Royal Military Museum became, by royal decree, an autonomous State service, similar to the other scientific institutions, which fall within the competence of the Ministry of Scientific Policy. Through this new structure, the institution gained a larger financial and administrative autonomy. A Board of Directors, composed of university representatives, ministry delegates, external specialists and Museum staff, plans long-term policy and controls finances.
This Board of Directors is assisted by a Scientific Commission and a Buyers Commission. The former advises on scientific projects, the latter has to be consulted for purchases over a given amount.
Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:08 am
Well done Johan.
Pretty standard stuff, eh? My emphasis.
Johan wrote:No response on the mission statement of the museeum?
...museum > scientific institution ...
...
Its general mission is to:
research
obtain
preserve
study
publications or objects concerning military history and place them at the disposal of the public.
...
A Board of Directors, composed of university representatives, ministry delegates, external specialists and Museum staff, plans long-term policy and controls finances.
This Board of Directors is assisted by a Scientific Commission and a Buyers Commission. The former advises on scientific projects, the latter has to be consulted for purchases over a given amount.
Pretty standard stuff, eh? My emphasis.
Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:20 am
I agree it's common. You can read what you want between the lines and surely the gate is wide open to do whatever they want.
The side also gives the organigram of the museum.
http://www.klm-mra.be/klm-new/engels/ma ... organigram
A lot of offficers and several of them already retired. I don't know these people and at the danger of misjudging them, I can't imagine that's it's an officers goal to spend his days in a museeum.
Nonetheless, It's a public institution, receiving donations from the ministry of defense and from the ministry of science, so at least they should be transparant.
It's a pitty we just had elections in Belgium. With the ongoing forming of a new government, it's not the right time to adress to the ministries and ask them for a more open policy.
the most frapant thing however is that i had to discover these plans through the net. Belgian media didn't even spilled a drop of inkt about this subject.
The side also gives the organigram of the museum.
http://www.klm-mra.be/klm-new/engels/ma ... organigram
A lot of offficers and several of them already retired. I don't know these people and at the danger of misjudging them, I can't imagine that's it's an officers goal to spend his days in a museeum.
Nonetheless, It's a public institution, receiving donations from the ministry of defense and from the ministry of science, so at least they should be transparant.
It's a pitty we just had elections in Belgium. With the ongoing forming of a new government, it's not the right time to adress to the ministries and ask them for a more open policy.
the most frapant thing however is that i had to discover these plans through the net. Belgian media didn't even spilled a drop of inkt about this subject.
Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:36 am
You know, I got involved in this discussion because someone said "look at this example of the Brussels muesum's incompantance" and showed us photo of an airframe that was NOT evidently damaged as claimed. I hate it when somebody wants to pee down my neck and then justify it by telling me its raining!
To my knowledge that incongruity has still not been addressed.
A number of you, apparently think its incomprehensible that Brussels allowed its stored collection to deteriorate to the condition shown in the photos. I've tried to point out that, sadly, "aircraft not currently on display" usually and traditionally means they look EXACTLY like that at nearly every museum/collection around the world. THIS A FACT, not my opinion. So telling me that Brussels is bad BECAUSE of this, makes me think more "rain" may be coming my way. It is a reality that must be delt with.
Brussels appears to share the same problem as most individuals and also every other museum. BUDGET CONSTRAINTS. Which in my opinion is the very reason the "aircraft not currently on display" begin the the decline to boneyard status. While oudoor and semi-inclosed storage is not ideal, it is far from criminal. And I am of the opinion that a Museum may have very legimate reasons for such storage, even if it is not obvious. I was trying to point out that a jump to a centain conclusions may not be in fact warranted. As a given reason for incompetence, I just don't think this one carries much argumentative weight.
I'm glad somebody finally mentioned the NASM. It is not only the largest aviation museum in the world, it is also the most visited of any museum in the entire world. BTW- they had (and probably still do ) a vast collection of "aircraft currently not on display" at Silver Hill. Strange, we don't see many photos of that place these days, and I know they have made larger facilities to showcase recent restorations, but for years its unrestored aircraft looked (let's say it all together) exactly like those shown in Brussels photos above. Was it a large sudden dose of "competence" that finally roused the NASM to correct thier boneyard problem? Hell no ( they are as incompetant as ever! ),it was large dose of funding.
Please don't think me terrible if I point out that emotion is the very center of any cause. Without emotion there is no commitment. To think that feelings don't help you at all or doesn't belong in the cause is a mistake, IMHO.
As any public institution is in my view totally incompetant by nature and suspect at all times, the Brussels Air Museum may be all the things you say. Probably are. But it is also an entrenched institution, not easily rooted out. Don't think for a minute you will not meet with political roadblocks. The powers that be have been defending and justifying their positions and policies for years. They know all the dirty tricks and will use them. Their apparent lack of communication can be the quiet before the storm. While you are making noise in the limited press and net, they may be marshalling for a full broadside. Not trying to scare you off, just be forwarned. Ask me how I know this some time.
Windmills were made for tilting. All the best.
charlie,
with aircraft (that I've been directly associated with and or worked on) in Seatle Museum of Flight
Japanese NAM
POF
USAF Museum (these guys have the ultimate boneyard/parts stores!!!!!)
Western Automobile and Aviation Museum
To my knowledge that incongruity has still not been addressed.
A number of you, apparently think its incomprehensible that Brussels allowed its stored collection to deteriorate to the condition shown in the photos. I've tried to point out that, sadly, "aircraft not currently on display" usually and traditionally means they look EXACTLY like that at nearly every museum/collection around the world. THIS A FACT, not my opinion. So telling me that Brussels is bad BECAUSE of this, makes me think more "rain" may be coming my way. It is a reality that must be delt with.
Brussels appears to share the same problem as most individuals and also every other museum. BUDGET CONSTRAINTS. Which in my opinion is the very reason the "aircraft not currently on display" begin the the decline to boneyard status. While oudoor and semi-inclosed storage is not ideal, it is far from criminal. And I am of the opinion that a Museum may have very legimate reasons for such storage, even if it is not obvious. I was trying to point out that a jump to a centain conclusions may not be in fact warranted. As a given reason for incompetence, I just don't think this one carries much argumentative weight.
I'm glad somebody finally mentioned the NASM. It is not only the largest aviation museum in the world, it is also the most visited of any museum in the entire world. BTW- they had (and probably still do ) a vast collection of "aircraft currently not on display" at Silver Hill. Strange, we don't see many photos of that place these days, and I know they have made larger facilities to showcase recent restorations, but for years its unrestored aircraft looked (let's say it all together) exactly like those shown in Brussels photos above. Was it a large sudden dose of "competence" that finally roused the NASM to correct thier boneyard problem? Hell no ( they are as incompetant as ever! ),it was large dose of funding.
Please don't think me terrible if I point out that emotion is the very center of any cause. Without emotion there is no commitment. To think that feelings don't help you at all or doesn't belong in the cause is a mistake, IMHO.
As any public institution is in my view totally incompetant by nature and suspect at all times, the Brussels Air Museum may be all the things you say. Probably are. But it is also an entrenched institution, not easily rooted out. Don't think for a minute you will not meet with political roadblocks. The powers that be have been defending and justifying their positions and policies for years. They know all the dirty tricks and will use them. Their apparent lack of communication can be the quiet before the storm. While you are making noise in the limited press and net, they may be marshalling for a full broadside. Not trying to scare you off, just be forwarned. Ask me how I know this some time.
Windmills were made for tilting. All the best.
charlie,
with aircraft (that I've been directly associated with and or worked on) in Seatle Museum of Flight
Japanese NAM
POF
USAF Museum (these guys have the ultimate boneyard/parts stores!!!!!)
Western Automobile and Aviation Museum
Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:45 pm
visaliaaviation wrote:I hate it when somebody wants to pee down my neck and then justify it by telling me its raining!
Charming. If you can't debate without being offensive, don't. I would hope we could differ here, and still share support.
As any public institution is in my view totally incompetant by nature and suspect at all times,
Thanks for so clearly revealing the reason for your view.
(I don't want to take a cheap shot, and I don't like to throw stones on spelling, but incidentally, they can probably spell incompetent.)
Indeed, some public institutions are bad - some aren't; some companies are great, some are Enron. But you've shown, repeatedly, that public = bad (and I presume private funding = good). Fine. Thank you. I and others don't agree, but we can leave that aside.
visaliaaviation wrote:You know, I got involved in this discussion because someone said "look at this example of the Brussels muesum's incompantance"
No, you were asked to sign a petition, to ask for information from the museum management. I think we can take it you don't agree. Fine.
visaliaaviation wrote:I've tried to point out that, sadly, "aircraft not currently on display" usually and traditionally means they look EXACTLY like that at nearly every museum/collection around the world. THIS A FACT, not my opinion.
No, it's clearly your opinion, and related to the agenda you've shown above. Secondly, some of us believe we should aspire to higher standards, as far as possible, not find excuses to fail. You've dragged lots of comparisons it - Some people drink and drive, but that's not a model performance to use as an excuse when caught by the cops, or one to adhere to.
Actual first hand evidence that shows your view of this being a normal standard is wrong: Peer local museums:
Musee de l’Air et L’espace, storage, Le Bourget. Annual open day, to show the public the store. (Maybe they tidy up. I doubt they put things in jigs just to impress the public.)
Dutch Military Aviation Museum – museum store & restoration.
Aviodrome, Holland. Museum store and restoration area. ‘New’ T-2 hangar, items racked, dusty, clean and dry.
And under rebuild.
National Aviation Mueum, Ottawa, Canada – another peer museum. Recently, a new director, new storage facility. Aircraft like the Beaufighter brought in from out of the cold into a standard-setting environment. Going forwards or backwards?
W.W.I aircraft at the Australian War Memorial storage Annex, the Treloar Centre. Note jigs, housekeeping, ropes (open for tour by prior appt with good reason.)
Hangar 180, RAAF Museum Point Cook. Effectively a publicly viewable store, aircraft in deep storage are rotated through this hangar regularly to change the display.
The restoration centre, NMNA, Pensacola.
External store, NMNA – Hurricane damage in the process of being rectified, not therefore a 'bonyard', IMHO.
Douglas B-23 Dragon at the Fantasy of Flight, Florida. Private funding, jigged aircraft.
And I’ve seen and toured other collections, and am not allowed to post or in some case take photos without prior permission. In my direct experience I’ve never seen anything like the photos of Brussels storage shown earlier in this thread.
visaliaaviation wrote:Brussels appears to share the same problem as most individuals and also every other museum. BUDGET CONSTRAINTS. ...
Was it a large sudden dose of "competence" that finally roused the NASM to correct thier boneyard problem? heck no ( they are as incompetant as ever! ),it was large dose of funding.
Museum management in 2007 need to be good fund-rasers, be they private or public. It's a tough but basic job. Were NASM as 'incompetant' as you claim, they'd not be able to 'correct their boneyard' problem. Of course they could be better; and they could be worse, too.
And what we are considering is not a reserve or trade collection, but the core collection aircraft being sent to unsuitable storage.
visaliaaviation wrote:Please don't think me terrible if I point out that emotion is the very center of any cause. Without emotion there is no commitment. To think that feelings don't help you at all or doesn't belong in the cause is a mistake, IMHO.
Emotion is a great motivator. To use it as a position to argue from is often a mistake; decisions and evaluation need to be better based.
visaliaaviation wrote:As any public institution is in my view totally incompetant by nature and suspect at all times, the Brussels Air Museum may be all the things you say. Probably are. But it is also an entrenched institution, not easily rooted out. Don't think for a minute you will not meet with political roadblocks. The powers that be have been defending and justifying their positions and policies for years. They know all the dirty tricks and will use them. Their apparent lack of communication can be the quiet before the storm. While you are making noise in the limited press and net, they may be marshalling for a full broadside. Not trying to scare you off, just be forwarned. Ask me how I know this some time.
Translation - you got burned, sometime (in the USA, not Belgium, I presume) and so everyone else should just keep their heads down too, because you 'know' better. Fair enough, and I do appreciate you are clearly doing good work, but I think we'd better agree to disagree.
Of course doing a proper job's tough. Is that a good reason to give up? No.
I think we've both had our say; I suggest we leave it up to everyone to make up their own minds from here on. I will however make one more post showing aircraft that shouldn't go into a damp or inadequate environment.
Yours,
Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:05 pm
The Brussels Air Museum
Various aircraft at the Brussels Air Museum, best not transferred into poor storage, in most cased due to originality, or wood /fabric construction, which is difficult to protect from damp, and worse to conserve rather than restoring by part-replacement:
Various aircraft at the Brussels Air Museum, best not transferred into poor storage, in most cased due to originality, or wood /fabric construction, which is difficult to protect from damp, and worse to conserve rather than restoring by part-replacement:
Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:35 am
What is OO-ANP? Never seen something like that before.
James, other than a petition, is there any other way people--those of us in the USA and lacking funds--can help?
James, other than a petition, is there any other way people--those of us in the USA and lacking funds--can help?
Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:03 pm
Hello again,
(and yes please point out spelling mistakes, because us low-landers have problems with the lingo!)
It is still good to see that there are some people out there trying 'to save
a national collection from total destruction'!
Some fantastic storage images.
Unfortunatley funding isn't always there.
JDK could you please send some additional images of the fantastic
storage at Duxford (especially the large airliners) (make sure you do not
miss the rotting material on the other side of the 505), Brooklands
(especially the large airliners), Paris (especially the large airliners) and
not to forget Florida (where the stuff that gets blown around every time
there is a hurricane).
Please also point out the perfect storage of production Concordes in the
UK.
Luckily there are some museums that house everything inside, let me
think of some examples, aaahhh Brussels.
Guess what, they are even trying to improve their museum building and
subsequently improve the long-term preservation of their collection.
WE BETTER STOP THIS!!!
I think I will sign up after all!
Take care,
Chris
(and yes please point out spelling mistakes, because us low-landers have problems with the lingo!)
It is still good to see that there are some people out there trying 'to save
a national collection from total destruction'!
Some fantastic storage images.
Unfortunatley funding isn't always there.
JDK could you please send some additional images of the fantastic
storage at Duxford (especially the large airliners) (make sure you do not
miss the rotting material on the other side of the 505), Brooklands
(especially the large airliners), Paris (especially the large airliners) and
not to forget Florida (where the stuff that gets blown around every time
there is a hurricane).
Please also point out the perfect storage of production Concordes in the
UK.
Luckily there are some museums that house everything inside, let me
think of some examples, aaahhh Brussels.
Guess what, they are even trying to improve their museum building and
subsequently improve the long-term preservation of their collection.
WE BETTER STOP THIS!!!
I think I will sign up after all!
Take care,
Chris